Journal

ELSEVIER Journal of Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95

Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual

water yield
John D. Stednick
Watershed Science Program, Department of Earth Resources, College of Natural Resources,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 8OS23, USA

Received 10 June 1994; revision accepted 10 April 1995

Abstract

Paired catchment studies have been used as a method to assess the effects of vegetation
removal (timber harvesting) on streamflow responses including lowflows and peakflows, but
particularly annual water yield. Paired catchment studies in the United States reporting on the
effects of timber harvesting on annual water yields were compiled. In general, changes in annual
water yield from forest cover reduction (or catchment area harvested) of less than 20% could
not be determined by hydrometric or streamflow measurement methods. The catchment studies
were discriminated by hydrologic region, defined by temperature and precipitation regimes.
This regionalization suggested that as little as 15% of the catchment area (or basal area) could
be harvested for a measurable increase in annual water yield at the catchment level in the Rocky
Mountain region as compared with 50% in the Central Plains, although system responses are
variable.
Given changing world-wide objectives for forest land management, hydrologists will be
asked to develop monitoring programs to assess the effects of multiple and temporally and
spatially distributed land use activities on water resources. Less catchment area will be
disturbed, thus monitoring programs must be carefully designed to obtain useful
information. The concept of hydrologic recovery, i.e. return to pretreatment condition tends
to be based on annual water yield, but also needs the evaluation of streamflow generation and
routing mechanisms including lowflows and peakflows when compared with the pretreatment
condition.

1. Introduction

The first paired catchment study in the United States began in 1909 at Wagon
Wheel Gap, Colorado to assess the effect of timber harvesting on annual water
yield (Bates and Henry, 1928). Since then, a number of different catchment studies
0022-1694/96/$15.00 0 1996 - Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
SSDI 0022-1694(95)02780-7
80 J.D. Stednick 1 Journal of Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95

have been done to assess the effects of vegetation removal or vegetation type
conversion on water yield (Meginnis, 1959; Hibbert, 1967; Burgy and Papazafiriou,
1971). In the mid-1950s, such catchment studies numbered approximately 150
(Holschen, 1967). An early review (Hibbert, 1967) on the effects of forest harvesting
on water yield made the following generalizations: (1) reduction of forest cover
increases water yield; (2) establishment of forest cover (afforestation) decreases
water yield; (3) response to treatment is highly variable and unpredictable.
Catchment research reached a zenith around 1965, coincident with the recognition
of the need for a more. holistic approach to studying forest ecosystems (Hombeck and
Swank, 1992). Catchment studies were expanded beyond water quantity and the
hydrologic cycle to include nutrient cycling. Measurements of inputs and outputs,
especially in precipitation and streamflow, were used for chemical budgets for plant
nutrients and pollutants. Physical, chemical, and biological processes were identified
and quantified in the nutrient cycles. But, have all the questions about the effect of
timber harvesting on water yields been answered?
The 1967 review was updated in 1982 with the addition of 55 catchment studies (for
a total of 94) (Bosch and Hewlett, 1982). Most of these studies dealt with
deforestation rather than afforestation. Variability in increased annual water yield
from vegetation removal was still observed, although, systematic differences were
evident when the catchment studies were subdivided by forest cover type (Bosch
and Hewlett, 1982). The inference was that coniferous forests, deciduous hard-
woods, brush and grass cover have (in that order) a decreasing influence on water
yield. A 10% change in cover caused approximately a 40 mm change in annual water
yield for coniferous forests, 25 mm for deciduous forests, and 10 mm for brush or
grass cover (Bosch and Hewlett, 1982).
Changes in water yield from reductions of less than 20% in forest cover could not
be determined by measurements (hydrometric method) (Bosch and Hewlett, 1982).
The effect of zero treatment must be zero and therefore small harvest areas (less than
20% of the catchment) may affect annual water yields but at a scale less than is
measurable on a catchment basis (McMinn and Hewlett, 1975).
Inference drawn from time-trend studies is weaker than that from paired catchment
studies simply because there is no climatic control to separate vegetal cover effects
from climatic effects (Whitehead and Robinson, 1993). Paired, nested or grouped
catchment studies were considered strong evidence, and studies based on after-the-
fact analyses of existing data, or less rigorous experiments on large catchments were
considered circumstantial evidence (Hewlett, 1971).
Summary or guidance documents to manage forests in the United States for
increased annual water yields by vegetation manipulation (timber harvesting) have
been prepared by regional forest cover type (Douglass, 1983; Harr, 1983; Hibbert,
1983; Kattelman et al., 1983; Troendle, 1983). The accuracy or general applicability of
these guidance documents has not been evaluated.
The review of timber harvesting effects on water yield using catchment studies is
updated in this paper. Paired catchment studies have often been used to assess
potential water yield changes from different land use activities or natural
disturbances including timber blowdown (Swank et al., 1988), insect infestations
 J.D. Steahick / Journal of Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95 81

(Bethlahmy, 1974; Love, 1955) forest fire (Helvey and Tiedemann, 1978; Helvey,
1980), grazing (Higgins et al., 1989) afforestation (Ayer, 1968; Smith, 1992;
Schneider and Ayer, 1961), vegetation type conversion (Pitman, 1978; Swank and
Miner, 1968; Swank and Douglass, 1974), selective understory timber harvesting
(Johnson and Kovner, 1956), riparian vegetation conversion (Rich and Gottfried,
1976), partial cutting (Lynch and Sopper, 1970) and selective timber harvesting
(Troendle and King, 1985; Hibbert and Gottfried, 1987). Has the state-of-knowledge
been improved since 1982?
Literature searches were conducted using on-line search capabilities in GeoRef,
Selected Water Resource Research Abstracts and Uncover. This literature review
includes 95 studies done in the United States only. As recognized earlier, the
presentation and interpretation of results is a potential limitation in some catchment
studies (Hewlett et al., 1969; Hewlett, 1971). Studies were compiled and summarized
as published. No judgements were made on the quality of research. Several authors
had to be contacted to obtain clarification or information not included in the
published work. No data were added to the compilation that were not previously
published and referenced as literature cited.

2. Results and discussion

Catchment studies were summarized by location, catchment, area, elevation,

catchment aspect, soil type, vegetation, mean annual streamflow, mean annual
precipitation, percent catchment area harvested, water yield increase and hydrologic
region (Table 1). The annual precipitation for the study catchments ranged from 450
to 2730 mm (Table 1). The study catchments were categorized by dominant
vegetation cover type including chaparral, conifer, hardwoods and mixed conifer-
hardwoods. The pretreatment vegetation conditions included natural and
undisturbed forest stands, regenerated forests and vegetation type conversions, i.e.
grass to forest. Catchment studies were not discriminated by forest cover history,
since this observation was often not included in the studies, but may account for some
of the observed variability in water yield response. Besides chaparral, which is
restricted to areas of low annual precipitation, all forest cover types were represented
over the range of annual precipitation. The 1982 review suggested a need for
catchment studies in conifer forests within the annual precipitation range of 600-
1200 mm (Bosch and Hewlett, 1982). This update shows this need has been met.
Mean annual streamtlow and mean annual precipitation data were used as
reported, although some authors stated that further data collection suggested
different values. No data were changed in the compilation (Table 1). The percent
catchment area harvested was assumed to be directly proportional to basal area, thus
a 25% basal area removal equated to harvesting 25% of the catchment area. No
attempt was made to separate harvest area location in the catchment or harvest type
on water yield, which may also account for some of the observed variability in water
yield. The water yield increase was the maximum increase reported in the 5 years since
treatment. Usually, the maximum increase in annual water yield occurred the year
Table 1
Summary of pked catchment studies used to assess water yield changes after vegetation removal

Catchment Area Elev. Aspect Soils Vegetation Mean Mean Area Water WRENS Reference ’
(I& Cm) annual annual cut yield
precip. stream flow (%) increase
‘.
(mm) (mm) (mm)

Hubbard Brook, NH #2 16 s Sandy loam Hardwoods 1220 710 100 343 1 Hombeck et al. (1970)
#5 35 s Sandy loam Hardwoods 1220 710 30 500 1 Hornbeck (1975)
Marcell, MN #4 26 438 Peat Aspen 762 100 117 1 Verry (1972, 1976, 1987)
WhiB Hollow, TN 694 410 SE Silt loam Mixed hardwoods 1180 460 34 0 2 Tennessee Valley Authority (1961)
Femow, WV #I 30 755 NE Silt loam Hardwoods 1520 580 85 130 2 Reinhart et al. (1963)
Kochenderfer et al. (1983, 1990)
#2 15 780 S Silt loam 1500 660 36 64 2 Patric (1980) Kochenderfer et al.
(1983, 1990)
#3 34 805 S Silt loam Hardwoods 1500 610 13 8 2 Reinhart et al. (1963)
#3 34 805 S Silt loam Har$voods 1500 610 8 0 2 Reinhart et al. (1963)
#3 34 805 S silt loam Hardwoods 1500 610 91 253 2 Patric (1971, 1980)
34 805 S Silt loam Hardwoods 1500 610 6 0 2 Reinhart et al. (1963)
-,: 39 805 S Silt loam Hardwoods 1500 610 0 0 2 Patric and Reinhart (1971)
36 780 NE Silt loam Hardwoods 1470 760 14 0 2 Reinhart et al. (1963)
##: 36 780 NE Silt loam Hardwoods 1470 760 20 36 2 Reinhart et al. (1963)
22 SE Silt loam Hardwoods 1440 490 50 165 2 Reinhart et al. (1963)
.$Z 22 SE Silt loam Hardwoods 1440 490 50 269 2 Kochenderfer and Wendel(l983)
#7 24 800 NE Silt loam Hardwoods 1470 790 50 261 2 Reinhart et al. (1963)
#7. 24 800 NE Silt loam Hardwoods 1470 790 50 155 2 Kochenderfer and Wendel(l983)
Leading Ridge, PA #2 43 358 S Silt loam Mix hardwood 1000 320 20 68 2 Lynch and Sopper (1970)
Coweeta, NC #l 16 840 S Loam Hardwoods 1730 740 100 150 2 Swank and Miner (I 968)
0 825 SE Loam Hardwoods 1810 610 100 127 2 Johnson and Kovner (1956)
;: 9 793 NW Loam Hardwoods 1850 840 80 265 2 Swift and Swank (1981)
59 900 s Loam Hardwoods 1825 1140 100 260 2 Swank et al. (1988)
$0 86 975 SE Loam Hardwoods 1850 1070 30 25 2 Johnson and Kovner (1956)
#13 16 810 NE Loam Hardwoods 1900 890 100 375 2 Swank and Helvey (1970)
#13 16 810 NE Loam Hardwoods 1900 890 100 362 2 Swift and Swank (1981)
#17 14 885 NW Loam 1890 780 100 414 2 Douglass and Swank (1972, 1975)
Douglass (1983)
#19 28 960 NW Loam Hardwoods 2000 1220 22 71 2 Johnson and Kovner (1956)
#22 34 1035 N Loam Hardwoods 2070 1280 50 189 2 Hewlett and Hibbcrt (1961)
 #28 144 1200 NE Loam Hardwoods 2270 1530 51 220 2 Hewlett and Douglass (1968)
#37 44 1280 NE Loam Hardwoods 2240 1590 100 255 2 Swift and Swank (1981)
Swank (1988)
w 20 1035 SE Loam Hardwoods 1950 1050 21 0 2 Johnson and Kovner (1956)
#41 29 1065 SE Loam Hardwoods 2030 1290 53 55 2 Johnson and Kovner (1956)
Coastal Plain, MS #I E Silt loam Mixed hardwood 1350 0 100 47 3 Ursic (1970)
#3 E Silt Loam Mixed hardwood 1350 0 100 75 3 Ursic (1970)
Grant Forest GA #18 33 165 SW Sandy loam Hardwoods 1220 470 100 254 3 Hewlett (1979)
Upper Bear Cr. AL XFI 53 Sandy loam Pine/hardwood 1400 0 52 102 3 Betson (1979)
xF2 53 Sandy loam Pine/hardwood 1400 0 86 291 3 Betson (1979)
Alum Cr, AR #Z 412 NE Stoney loam Pine/hardwood 1330 150 45 107 3 Rogerson (1979) in
Bosch and Hewlett (1982)
#3 1 412 NE Stoney loam Pine/hardwood 1330 150 100 226 3 Bosch and Hewlett (1982)
Workman Cr. AZ 100 2225 SW Clay loam Conifer 833 86 32 32 4 Hibbert and Gottfried (1987)
Workman Cr. AZ 100 2225 SW Clay loam Conifer 833 86 73 67 4 Hibbert tind Gottfried (1987)
Workman Cr: AZ 100 2225 SW Clay loam Coidfer 833 86 40 45 4 Hibbert and Gottfried (1987)
Workman Cr. AZ 100 2225 SW clay loam Conifer 833 86 83 107 4 Hibbert and Gottfried (1987)
Workman CF! AZ IO0 2225 SW Clay loam Co&fer 810 86 1 0 4 Rich and Gottfried (1976)
S. Fork 100 2225 SW Clay loam Conifer 813 87 45 0 4 Rich (1965)
N. Fork 100 2225 SW Clay loam Conifer 810 86 32 51 4 Hibbert (1979)
Wagon Wheel Gap, CO 81 3110 NE Clay loam Aspen 544 157 100 25 4 Van Haveren (1988)
Wagon Wheel Gap, CO .81 3110 NE Clay loam Aspen 536 157 100 47. 4 Bates and Henry (1928)
Chicken Cr. UT I 1900 1000 la0 245 4 Johnston (1984)
glue Mts. OR #! i523 NE Ash Larch, Doug fir 1355 472 50 248 4 Fowler et al. (1987)
#2 ,’ 1523 NE Ash Larch, Doug fir 135s 460 50 147 4 Fowler et al. (1987)
i #3 1523 NE Ash Larch, Doug fir 1355 372 50 Ill 4 Fowler et al. (1987)
Fool Creek, CO 289 3200 N Granitic Pine/spruce 760 280 40 147 4 Troendle and King (1985)
Fool Creek, CO 289 3200 N Granitic Pine/spruce 635 283 40 119 4 Troendle and King (1985)
Fool Creek, CO 289 3200 N Granitic Pine/spruce 712 283 83 51 4 Alexander et al. (1985)
Fraser Forest, CO 289 3200 N Granitic Pine/spruce 712 283 66 54 4 Alexander et al. (1985)
Fraser Forest, CO 289 3200 N Granitic Pine/spruce 112 283 50 28 4 Alexander et al. (1985)
Deadhorse Cr. CO 270 3120 E Granitie Fir/pine 762 500 36 60 4 Troendle and King (1985)
St. Louis Creek, CO 3200 N Granitic Pine/spruce 712 88 13 0 4 Alexander et al. (1985)
St. Louis Creek, CO 289 3200 N Granitic Pine/spruce 712 283 100 88 4 Alexander et al. (1985)
Nat. Drainage, AZ 5 1420 SE Quartz Chaparral 452 34 100 0 4 Hibbert (1980)
wsc 5 1420 SE QUartZ Chaparral 450 43 100 13 4 Hibbert (1980)
Beaver Creek, AZ #I 124 1700 w Clay Juniper 457 20 100 0 4 Brown (1971)
#3 146 1600 w Clay Jllniper 451 18 83 30 4 Hibbert (1979)
147 Stoney clay Pinyon juniper 426 22 78 123 4 Baker (1984, 1986)
E
84 J.D. Stednick 1 Journal of Hydrology 176 (19%) 79-95
Willow Cr. AZ Mixed conifer 749 512 62 96 4 Gottfried (1983)
Coyote Cr., OR #l 69 900 Gravel loam Doug 6r 1230 630 50 60 5 Harr (1976), Harr et al. (1979)
68 900 Gravel loam Doug 6r 1230 630 30 119 5 Harr (1976), Harr et al. (1979)
$ 50 900 Gravel loam Doug fir 1230 630 100 360 5 Harr (1976), Harr et al. (1979)
Fox Creek, OR (#l) 59 955 Sit loam Doug iir 2730 1750 25 0 5 Harr et al. (1979)
#3 71 900 Silt loam Doug fir 2730 1750 25 0 5 Harr (1980)
Deer Creek, OR 303 312 Marine sandstone Doug 6r 2480 1910 25 150 5 Harris (1973, 1977) Harr (1976)
Needle Branch, OR 71 312 Penn sandstone Doug fir 2480 1885 82 615 5 Harris (1973, 1977) Harr (1976)
HJ Andrew, OR #l 96 700 NW Loam Doug fir-W. hem 2390 1380 100 462 5 Rothacher (1970)
#3 101 760 NW Loam Doug lb-W. hem 2390 1350 30 297 5 Harr (1976), Harr et al. (1979)
#6 13 900s Volcanic Doug Ii-W. hem 2150 1290 100 425 5 Harr (1976),
Harr et al. (1979, 1982)
#7 21 900s Volcanic Doug f&W. hem 2150 1290 60 240 5 Harr (1976),
Harr et al. (1979, 1982)
#IO 9 500 s Volcanic Doug fir-W. hem 2330 1650 100 400 5 Harr (1976), Harr et al. (1979)
Placer County, CA 5 168 N Clay loam Oak woodland 640 145 99 154 7 Lewis (1968)
San Dimas, CA 354 840 S Sandy loam Chaparral 650 64 1.7 6 7 Rowe (1963)
Chmchita, OK
ws #IO 5.74 W Loam Oak-hickory 1317 1652 50 510 8 Miller et al. (1988)
WS#ll 4.93 Loam Oak-hickory 1317 370 0 0 8 Miller et al. (1988)
ws #12 5.91 WNW Loam Oak-hickory 1317 1652 100 752 8 Miller et al. (1988)
ws #14 4.35 N Loam Oak-hickory 1317 1652 50 558 8 Miller et al. (1988)
ws #15 5.11 NW Loam Oak-hickory 1317 1652 100 524 8 Miller et al. (1988)
ws #17 4.15 SE Loam Oak-hickory 1317 1652 50 382 8 Miller et al. (1988)
WS #18 4.08 SE Loam Oak-hickory 1317 1652 100 306 8 Miller et al. (1988)

E
 86 J.D. Stednick / Journal of Hydrology 176 (19%) 79-9.5

after treatment, however there were several instances owing to unusual precipitation
patterns, where the maxima occurred several years after treatment.
A synthesis of the earlier world-wide data base (Bosch and Hewlett, 1982) coupled
with work in England on the effects of deforestation (or harvesting) on annual water
yield increases presented the following relation (Calder, 1993)
Y = 3.26(x)

3 = 0.50

SE = 89 mm
where Y is millimeters of annual water yield increase and x is the percent of catchment
deforested. The United States data base as compiled here (Fig. 1) gave the following
relation
Y = 2.46(x)

3 = 0.17

SE = 149 mm

n = 95

so0
y = 2.46(x)
r2 = 0.17
SE = 149
n=95

- Appalachian
m
- Eastern Coastal

?? Rocky Mountain

A Pdcific

x Plains

200

40 60 80 im
perc.snt hanested

Fig. 1. Annual water yield increase (mm) following percent of catchment harvested. Catchment area
harvested was assumed equal to basal area removed.
 J.D. Steahick 1 Journal of Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95 87

Additional studies have apparently not improved the global model, and suggest that
additional investigations are needed. The paired catchment procedure, usually
involves the development of a regression of water yield (or other metric) between
the paired catchments. The pretreatment regression has a certain confidence interval
associated with the line. The posttreatment water yield and confidence interval has to
be greater than the least significant difference (LSD) of the pretreatment regression
and confidence interval to be considered significant. Several studies reported zero
increase in annual water yield after treatment. It was indeterminate if the water
yield increases were really zero, or if they were not greater than the LSD and reported
as zero. Any measurement of a treatment effect has to be larger than the error
associated with that measurement to be considered a treatment effect. These zero
values were left as zero values in the data summary. A summary regression using
pooled variance for all studies could not be calculated, since individual study
regression confidence intervals (or LSD) were often not reported.
The paired catchment concept allows for variation in annual precipitation and
hence streamflow. ‘No treatment should have no effect on annual water yield’,
therefore, the regressions were forced through the origin.
How much of the catchment can be harvested before the annual water yield
increase is significant? The plot of annual water yield increase (mm) versus percent
harvested for all studies (Fig. 1) suggests that approximately 20% of the catchment
vegetation cover must be harvested for a measurable increase in annual water yield.
The 20% value is from visual interpretation of the plot and not the regression
intercept. This result confirms the measurable threshold suggested earlier (Bosch
and Hewlett, 1982). Catchment studies with less harvested areas have had measur-
able increases in water yield; conversely, studies with 100% harvest have had no
measurable increase in annual water yield (Fig. 1). As mentioned earlier, this
variability may be the result of harvest location, harvest type, pretreatment
vegetation cover or measurement error.
Simple linear regressions between water yield increase and percent harvested were
developed for each hydrologic region. The hydrologic regions were defined by distinct
precipitation patterns and streamflow regimes following the hydrology chapter in
WRENSS, Water Resources Evaluation of Nonpoint Source pollution from Silvi-
cultural activities, a guidance document for hydrology and sediment changes as
related to forest land use activities (notably timber harvest) (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1980). The hydrologic regions were defined as Appalachian
Mountains, Eastern Coastal Plain, Rocky Mountain/Inland Intermountain, Pacific
Coast, Central Plains, Continental /Maritime Province, Central Sierra Province, New
England and Upper Lake States.
The Appalachian Mountain hydrologic region data base of 29 studies suggests that
20% of the catchment needs to be harvested for a measurable increase in annual water
yield. Harvesting all catchment vegetation resulted in annual water yield increases
from zero to over 400 mm. Each 10% increase in area harvested increased annual
water yield by 28 mm (Table 2).
The Eastern Coastal Plain hydrologic region included seven studies. The smallest
harvested area reported was 45% of the catchment area and increased annual water
88 J.D. Steahick / Journal of Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95

Table 2
Regression model statistics for annual water yield increase versus percent harvest area for all studies and by
hydrologic region

Hydrological region Number n Slope ? SE p value Threshold

for response

All studies _ 95 2.46 0.17 149 0.0001 20

New England/Lake states 1 3 - _ - _ _
Appalachian Mountains 2 29 2.78 0.65 75 0.0001 20
and Highlands
Eastern Coastal Plain 3 7 1.84 0.02 97 0.0051 45
and Piedmont
Rocky Mountain Inland 4 35 0.94 0.01 66 0.0001 15
Intermountain
Pacific Coast 5 12 4.40 0.65 118 0.0001 25
Continental/Maritime 6 O_ - - _ -
Central Sierra Province 7 2- - -- -
Central Plains 8 7 6.15 0.31 197 0.0009 50

The threshold of response is harvest area required for measureable increase in annual water yield.

yield over 100 mm (Table 1). Annual water yield increased over 250 mm when all
vegetation was harvested. The conservative estimate is that 45% of the catchment
must be harvested for a measurable increase in annual water yield. Each 10% increase
in area harvested increased annual water yield by 18 mm (Table 2).
The Rocky Mountain/Inland Intermountain region data suggest that a 15%
harvest area results in a measurable annual water yield increase (Table 2). When
50% of the catchment was harvested, annual water yield increases ranged from 25
to 250 mm and complete harvesting (100%) increased annual water yields from zero
to over 350 mm. The results are variable especially above 30% harvested. The region
had the lowest slope between annual water yield increase and percent harvested
(Table 2).
The Pacific Coast hydrologic region data base of 12 studies suggests a 25%
minimum harvest to obtain a measurable annual water yield increase (Table 2). An
annual water yield increase of 615 mm was observed when 82% of a catchment was
harvested. This particular study, located in the Oregon Coast Range, did not leave
streamside vegetative buffers (Harris, 1973, 1977; Stednick, 1995). Catchments with
100% harvest, located in the Oregon Cascade Range, increased annual water yield
from 400 to 460 mm. The linear model suggests approximately 50 mm for every 10%
of the catchment harvested.
The Central Plains hydrologic region data base had no studies with less than 50%
harvest, but all studies at 50% harvest had measurable water yield increases. The 50%
area harvested for a measurable response is probably conservative (Table 2). Whole
catchment harvesting (100%) had water yield increases from 306 to 752 mm (Table 1).
All studies were conducted in one study area, but on multiple catchments. Additional
research is warranted.
The Continental/Maritime Province (rain and snow) hydrologic region had no
 J.D. Stednick / Journal of Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95 89

studies investigating the effects of vegetation removal on annual water yield. This
province includes the northeast corner of Washington state, the Idaho panhandle and
the northwestern tip of Montana. The effect of timber harvesting on hydrology has
been an important issue here. This hydrologic transition zone includes rain, snow, and
rain-on-snow precipitation events. The rain-on-snow hydrologic response is not well
understood. Hydrologic studies in this region are needed.
The Central Sierra Province in central and southwestern California includes rain
and snow precipitation events. Only two studies were found for this region: a
chaparral conversion (decrease) of 1.6% increased annual water yield 6 mm (Rowe,
1963) and 99% vegetation removal in an oak woodland increased annual water yield
154 mm (Lewis, 1968). Given the range in responses, no model was calculated.
The New England and Upper Lake States region is snow dominated and only three
studies were found documenting the effect of vegetation change or timber harvesting
on annual water yield (Table 2). Catchment studies are being done in these areas and
such results should be forthcoming. No model was calculated for this region.
Few comparative studies have been done on catchment results for a particular
region. Comparison of northeastern United States sites, suggested a 25% reduction
in basal area to obtain a measurable response in water yield (Hornbeck et al., 1993).
Research at the Coweeta Experimental Forest, in the Appalachian Mountains,
suggests a 10% reduction (Swank et al., 1988). Differences probably are due to
accuracy of streamflow measurements and variability in study catchments. This
compilation for the region suggests 20% for the Appalachian Mountains (Table 2).
A compilation of catchment studies in Canada also suggests a 20% minimum of
catchment area harvest for a measurable annual water yield increase (Hetherington,
1987). The Canadian review suggested that each 10% increase in catchment area
harvested may increase water yield by approximately 15 mm, but responses were
again variable.
The simple linear regressions developed here are meant to serve as guidelines only
for land managers and the scientists who measure the effects of land use activities on
water resources. The WRENSS model should be reviewed for minimum detectable
effect on annual water yield from timber harvesting (or vegetation conversion). A
sensitivity analysis of the WRENSS computer model used to predict water yield
following different silvicultural treatments was performed on model input
parameters (Stednick and Potts, 1989).
Streamflow responses to vegetation conversion depend both on the region’s annual
precipitation and on the precipitation for the year under treatment. Plots of annual
water yield (streamflow) versus annual precipitation showed a better relation than
plots of annual water yield increase versus annual precipitation, probably owing to
the comparison of studies with rain, rain and snow, and snow-dominated precipita-
tion patterns. Yield changes are greatest in high rainfall areas, but shorter lived
because of rapid revegetation. The annual yield change resulting from treatment in
high rainfall areas seems to be independent of the variation of rainfall from year to
year (Bosch and Hewlett, 1982) and more a function of forest regrowth or leaf area
index (Swank et al., 1988; Burt and Swank, 1992; Stednick, 1995). Part of the varia-
bility in annual water yield increases and streamflow response following timber
90 J.D. Stednick / Journal of Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95

harvesting, including partial cuttings, may be due to the physical location of harvest
units with respect to the source area of streamllow (Bosch and Hewlett, 1982;
Troendle and King, 1985; Stednick, 1995).
The basic premise of catchment ecosystem analysis is that the myriad of physical,
chemical, and biological processes occurring within an ecosystem are interrelated
(Hornbeck and Swank, 1992). Catchment ecosystem analysis can be used to evaluate
how individual or combinations of land uses might affect nutrient cycles and
subsequently forest and stream productivity and health. The use of catchments as
the ecosystem boundary ensures that effects are integrated over a sizable landscape.
Recent efforts in catchment research have focused on the process of hydrologic
recovery. Hydrologic recovery was defined as the return of annual water yield to
pretreatment levels (Hibbert and Gottfried, 1987; Stednick and Kern, 1992;
Hornbeck et al., 1993; Stednick, 1995). This simplistic approach tends to ignore
streamflow generation and routing mechanisms on the watershed and landscape
level. Hydrologic recovery should include returns of peakflows (Hart-, 1976; Harr et
al., 1979; Cheng, 1989; Stednick, 1995) and lowflows (Keppeler and Ziemer, 1990;
Hicks et al., 1991; Whitehead and Robinson, 1993; Stednick, 1993) and hydrologic
pathways affecting nutrient transport.
Owing to temporal variability in weather, and perhaps climate, catchment
ecosystem analysis is necessarily long term. The concept of hydrologic recovery
may have different meanings to different users (Thomas, 1990), none the less long-
term monitoring is necessary to properly define system response and recovery
(Stednick and Kern, 1992; Stednick, 1995) and should be supported by land
management agencies.
The concept of hydrologic recovery is complex. Continuation of the Alsea
Watershed Study in Coastal Oregon indicates streamflow generation and routing
mechanisms were altered by timber harvesting and site preparation and have not
returned to pretreatment conditions 28 years after harvesting although annual
water yields are within pretreatment levels (Stednick, 1995).

3. Summary

In general, changes in annual water yield from harvesting of less than 20%
catchment area or forest cover cannot be determined by streamflow measurements.
The reduction of forest cover by less than 20% is seldom used in paired catchment
studies. Most studies attempt to harvest (or otherwise disturb) the maximum area to
assure a measurable response. There may be studies with forest cover reductions of
less than 20% that were simply not published. Changing world-wide objectives for
land management suggest forest cover reductions of less than 20% may become more
common. Hydrologists will be asked to evaluate system responses to multiple and
temporally and spatially distributed land use activities. The data synthesis presented
here should enable land managers and researchers to prepare monitoring programs
that address the effects of timber harvesting on water yields in different hydrologic
regions.
 J.D. Steahick 1 Journal of Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95 91

Several studies as published did not include sufficiently detailed site characteriza-
tion data. When authors were contacted to obtain missing information, the study was
included in the data base, otherwise it was dropped. Authors of scientific papers or
technical reports should be reminded that their effort should be fully documented and
should be written with consideration for future utility. Scientific papers are often
re-evaluated in the context of synthesis papers or used to extend existing data bases.
Long-term effects of timber harvesting on water yield are important in both water
resource management and evaluation of nutrient exports.
This literature review and synthesis considered the effect of timber harvesting on
annual water yields. The variable responses of annual water yield to harvesting
suggest both complex and perhaps non-linear responses. Long-term catchment
studies are needed to evaluate these responses.
We are in the process of compiling literature on the long-term effects of timber
harvesting on peakflows and lowflows. We would like to solicit your assistance in
commling both published and unpublished studies on the long-term effects of timber
harvesting on peakflows and lowflows.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to acknowledge the contribution of Devon Nelson and Dave
Gilbert at Colorado State University, who conducted the literature research and
helped prepare the data base. David Gluns, British Columbia Ministry of Forestry
Canada, provided the impetus and the environment to finish the paper. The
comments and questions from the anonymous reviewers and associate editor D.R.
Maidment are appreciated.

References

Alexander, R.R., Troendle, C.A., Kaufmann, M.R., Shepperd, W.D., Crouch, G.L. and Watkins, R.K.,
1985. The Fraser Experimental Forest, Colorado: Research Program and Published Research
1937-1985. U S For. Serv. Rocky Mount. For. Range Exp. Stn. Gen. Tech. Rep. No. 118.
Ayer, G.R., 1968. Reforestation with conifers - its effect on streamflow in Central New York. Water
Resour. Bull., 4(2): 13-24.
Baker, Jr., M.B., 1984. Changes in streamflow in an herbicide treated pinyon-juniper watershed in Arizona.
Water Resour. Res., 20: 1639-1642.
Baker, Jr., M.B., 1986. Effects of ponderosa pine treatments on water yield in Arizona. Water Resour. Res.,
22: 67-13.
Bates, C.G. and Henry, A.J., 1928. Second phase of streamflow experiment at Wagon Wheel Gap,
Colorado. Mon. Weather Rev., Vol. 56(3): 79-85.
Bethlahtny, N., 1974. More streamflow after a bark beetle epidemic. J. Hydrol., 23: 185-189.
Betson, R.P., 1979. The effects of clearcutting practices on Upper Bear Creek, Alabama watershed. Rep.
No. WR28-l-550-101, Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, AL.
Bosch, J.M. and Hewlett, J.D., 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of
vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. J. Hydrol., 55: 3-23.
92 J.D. Stednick / Journal of Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95

Brown, H.E., 1971. Evaluating watershed management alternatives. J. Brig. Drain. Div., ASCE, 97:
93-107.
Burgy, R.H. and Papazafniou, Z.G., 1971. Vegetative management and water yield relationships. In: E.J.
Monke (Editor), Biological Effects in the Hydrological Cycle, Proc. Third Int. Seminar for Hydrology
Professors, Purdue University, Indiana. Agricultural Experiment Station, West Lafayette, IN,
pp. 315-331.
Burt, T.P. and Swank, W.T., 1992. Flow frequency responses to grass conversion and subsequent
succession. Hydrol. Process. ($2): 179-188.
Calder, I.R., 1993. Hydrologic effects of land use change. In: D.R. Maidment (Editor in Chief) Handbook
of Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York, Ch. 13.
Cheng, J.D., 1989. Streamflow changes after clear-cut logging of a pine beetle-infested watershed in
Southern British Columbia, Canada. Water Resour. Res., 25: 449-456.
Douglass, J.E., 1983. The potential for water yield augmentation from forest management in the eastern
United States. Water Resour. Bull., 19: 351-358.
Douglass, J.E. and Swank, W.T., 1972. Streamflow modification through management of eastern forests. U
S For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-94.
Douglass, J.E. and Swank, W.T., 1975. Effects of management practices on water quality and quantity:
Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, North Carolina. In: Municipal Watershed Management Symp. Proc.
US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-13.
Fowler, W.B., Helvey, J.D. and Felix, E.N., 1987. Hydrologic and climatic changes in three small
watersheds after timber harvest. US For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-379.
Gottfried, G.J., 1983. Stand changes on a southwestern mixed conifer watershed after timber harvesting. J.
For., 81: 311-316.
Gottfried, G.J., 1991. Moderate timber harvesting increases water yields from an Arizona mixed conifer
watershed. Water Resour. Bull., 27: 537-547.
Harr, R.D., 1976. Forest practices and streamflow in Western Oregon. In: Symposium on Watershed
Management. US For. Serv. PNW-GTR-49.
Han, R.D., 1980. Streamflow after patch logging in small drainages within the Bull Run municipal
watershed, Oregon. US For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-268.
Harr, R.D., 1983. Potential for augmenting water yield through forest practices in Western Washington
and Western Oregon. Water Resour. Bull., 19: 383-393.
Harr, R.D., Fredriksen, R.L. and Rothacher, J., 1979. Changes in streamflow following timber harvest in
Southwest Oregon. US For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-249.
Harr, R.D., Levno, A. and Mersereau, R., 1982. Streamflow changes after logging 130 year old Douglas-fir
in two small watersheds. Water Resour. Res., 18: 637-644.
Harris, D.D., 1973. Hydrologic changes after clearcut logging in a small Oregon Coastal Watershed. J. Res.
US Geol. Surv., 1: 487-491.
Harris, D.D., 1977. Hydrologic changes after logging in two small Oregon Coastal watersheds. US Geol.
Surv., Water-Supply Pap. 2037.
Helvey, J.D., 1980. Effects of a north central Washington wildfire on runoff and sediment production.
Water Resour. Bull., 16: 627-634.
Helvey, J.D. and Tiedemann, A.R., 1978. Effects of defoliation by Douglas-fir tussock moth on timing and
quantity or streamflow. US For. Serv. Res. Note PNW-326.
Hetherington, E.D., 1987. The importance of forests in the hydrological regime. In: M.D. Healy and
R.R. Wallace (Editors), Canadian Bulletin Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Ottawa, Ont., No. 215,
533 pp.
Hewlett, J.D., 1971. Comments on the catchment experiment to determine vegetal effects on water yield.
Water Resour. Bull., 7: 376-381.
Hewlett, J.D., 1979. Forest water quality: an experiment in harvesting and regenerating Piedmont forest.
Res. Paper, School of Forest Research, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Hewlett, J.D. and Hibbert, A.R., 1961. Increases in water yield after several types of forest cutting. IAHS
Bulletin, Vol. 6, IAHS, Wallingford, pp. 5-17.
Hewlett, J.D. and Douglass, J.E., 1968. Blending forest uses. U S For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-37.
 J.D. Stednick / Journal of Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95 93

Hewlett, J.D., Lull, H.W. and Reinhart, K.G., 1969. In defense of experimental watersheds. Water Resour.
Res., 5: 306-316.
Hibbert, A.R., 1967. Forest treatment effects on water yield. In: W.E. Sopper and H.W. Lull (Editors), Int.
Symp. For. Hydrol., Pennsylvania, September 1965. Pergamon, Oxford.
Hibbert, A.R., 1969. Water yield changes after converting a forested catchment to grass. Water Resour.
Res., 5: 634-640.
Hibbert, A.R., 1971. Increases in streamflow after converting chaparral to grass. Water Resour. Res., 7:
71-80.
Hibbert, A.R., 1979. Managing vegetation to increase flow in the Colorado River Basin. U S For. Serv.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-66.
Hibbert, A.R., 1980. Opportunities to increase water yield in the southwest by vegetation management. In:
D. Baumgartner (Editor), Proc. Symp. Interior West Watershed Management, Spokane, WA, April
1980. Washington State University, Pullman, WA, pp. 223-230.
Hibbert, A.R., 1983. Water yield improvement potential by vegetation management on Western
rangelands. Water Resour. Bull., 19: 375-381.
Hibbert, A.R. and Gottfried, G.J., 1987. Stormflow responses to forest treatments on two Arizona mixed
conifer watersheds. In: Management of Subalpine Forests: Building on 50 Years of Research. US For.
Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-149, pp. 189-193.
Hibbert, A.R., Davis, E.A. and Scholl, D.G., 1974. Chaparral conversion potential in Arizona. Part I:
water yield response and effects on other resources. US For. Serv. Res. Pap. RM-126.
Hicks, B.J., Beschta, R.L. and Harr, R.D., 1991. J.ong-term changes in streamflow following logging in
Western Oregon and associated fisheries implications. Water Resour. Bull., 27: 217-226.
Higgins, D.A., Tiedemann, A.R., Quigley, T.M. and Marx, D.B., 1989. Streamflow characteristics of small
watersheds in the Blue Mountains of Oregon. Water Res. Bull., Vol. 25: 1131-l 149.
Holschen, C.E., 1967. Forest hydrology research in the United States. In: W.E. Sopper and H.W. Lull
(Editors), Int. Symp. on Forest Hydrology, Pennsylvania, September 1965. Pergamon, Oxford,
pp. 99-103.
Hombeck, J.W., 1975. Streamflow response to forest cutting and revegetation. Water Resour. Bull., 11:
1257-1260.
Hombeck, J.W. and Swank, W.T., 1992. Watershed ecosystem analysis as a basis for multiple use
management of eastern forests. Ecol. Appl., 2: 238-247.
Hombeck, J.W., Pierce, R.S. and Federer, C.A., 1970. Stormflow changes after forest clearing in New
England. Water Resour. Res., 6: 1124-l 132.
Hombeck, J.W., Adams, M.B., Corbett, E.S., Verry, E.S. and Lynch, J.A., 1993. Long-term impacts of
forest treatments on water yield: a summary for northeastern United States. J. Hydrol., 150: 323-344.
Johnson, E.A. and Kovner, J.L., 1956. Effect on streamflow of cutting a forest understory. For. Sci., 2: 82-91.
Johnston, R.S., 1984. Effect of small aspen clearcuts on water yield and water quality. U S For. Serv. Res.
Pap. INT-333.
Kattelmann, R.C., N.H. Berg, and J. Rector, 1983. The potential for increasing streamflow from Sierra
Nevada watersheds. Water Resour. Bull., 19:. 3, pp. 395-402.
Keppeler, E.T. and Ziemer, R.S., 1990. Logging effects on streamflow: water yield and summer low flows at
Caspar Creek in Northwestern California. Water Resour. Res., 26: 1669-1679.
Kochendorfer, J.N. and Wendel, G.W., 1983. Plant succession and hydrologic recovery on a deforested and
herbicided watershed. For. Sci., 29: 545-558.
Kochendorfer, J.N., Edwards, P.J. and Helvey, J.D., 1990. Land management and water yield in the
Appalachians. In: Watershed Planning and Analysis in Action, Symp. Proc., Durango, CO, 9-11
July 1990. ASCE, New York, pp. 523-532.
Lewis, D.C., 1968. Annual hydrologic response to watershed conversion from oak woodland to annual
grassland. Water Resour. Res., 4: 59-72.
Love, L.D., 1955. The effects of streamflow of the killing of spruce and pine by the Engelmann spruce
beetle. Trans., Am. Geophys. Union, 36: 113-118.
Lynch, J.A. and Sopper, W.E., 1970. Water yield increases from partial clearcutting of forested watershed.
Sci. Agric., 17: 8-17.
94 J.D. Stednick / Journal of Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95

McMinn, J.W. and Hewlett, J.D., 1975. First year water yield increase after forest cutting: an alternative
model. J. For., 73: 654-655.
Meginnis, H.G., 1959. Increasing water yields by cutting forest vegetation. IAHS Pnbl. No. 48, IAHS, pp.
59-68.
Miller, E.L., Beasley, R.S. and Lawson, E.R., 1988. Forest harvest and site preparation effects on stormflow
and peakflow of ephemeral streams in the Ouachita Mountains. J. Environ. Qual., 17: 212-218.
Patric, J.H., 1971. Hydrologic effects of deforesting two mountain watersheds in West Virginia. Water
Resour. Res., 7: 1182-1188.
Patric, J.H., 1980. Effects of wood products harvest on forest soil and water relations. J. Environ. Qual., 9:
73-80.
Patric, J.H. and Reinhart, K.G., 1971. Hydrologic effects of deforesting two mountain watersheds in West
Virginia. Water Resour. Res., 7: 1182-l 188.
Pitman, W.V., 1978. Trends in streamflow due to upstream land use changes. J. Hydrol., 39: 227-237.
Reinhart, K.G., Eschner, A.R. and Trimble, Jr., G.R., 1963. Effect on streamflow of four forest practices in
the mountains of West Virginia. U S For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-l.
Rich, L.R., 1965. Water yields resulting from treatments applied to mixed conifer watersheds. In: Proc.
Arizona Watershed Symp., Phoenix, AZ, Vol. 9. pp. 12-15.
Rich, L.R., 1972. Managing a Ponderosa pine forest to increase water yield. Water Resour. Res., 8:
422-428.
Rich, L.R. and Gottfried, G.J., 1976. Water yields resulting from treatments on the Workman Creek
Experimental Watersheds in Central Arizona. Water Resour. Res., 12: 1053-1060.
Rich, L.R. and Thompson, J.R., 1974. Watershed management in Arizona’s mixed conifer forests: the
status of our knowledge. U S For. Serv. Res. Pap. RM-130.
Rothacher, J., 1970. Increases in water yield following clearcut logging in the Pacific Northwest. Water
Resour. Res., 6: 653-658.
Rowe, P.B., 1963. Streamflow increases after removing woodland-riparian vegetation from a Southern
California watershed. J. For., 61: 365-370.
Schneider, W.J. and Ayer, G.R., 1961. Effect of reforestation on streamflow in central New York. U. S.,
Geol. Surv., Water-Supply Pap. No. 1602.
Smith, CM., 1992. Riparian afforestation effects on water yields and water quality in pasture catchments. J.
Environ. Qual., 21: 237-245.
Stednick, J.D., 1995. Long term changes in streamflow following timber harvesting in the Oregon Coast
Range: Water quantity. In: J.D. Stednick (Editor), The Alsea Watershed: Hydrological and Biological
Responses to Temperate Coniferous Forest Practices. Springer, New York in press.
Stednick, J.D. and Potts, D.F., 1989. Prediction of annual water yield from land management activities. In:
W. Woessner and D.F. Potts (Editors), Proc. AWRA Symp. on Headwaters Hydrology, August 1989,
Missoula, MT. American Water Resources Association, Bethesda, MD, pp. 619-627.
Stednick, J.D. and Kern, T.J., 1992. Long term effects of timber harvesting in the Oregon Coast Range: The
New Alsea Watershed Study (NAWS). In: M.E. Jones and A. Laenen (Editors), Interdisciplinary
Approaches to Hydrology and Hydrogeology, Proc. meeting, Portland, OR, October 1992. American
Institute of Hydrology, Minneapolis, MN, pp. 502-510.
Swank, W.T., 1988. Stream chemistry responses to disturbances. In: W.T. Swank and D.A. Crossley, Jr.
(Editors), Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta. Ecol. Stud., 66: 339-357.
Swank, W.T. and Douglass, J.E., 1974. Streamflow greatly reduced by converting deciduous hardwood
stands to pine. Science, 185: 857-859.
Swank, W.T. and Helvey, J.D., 1970. Reduction of streamflow increases following regrowth of clearcut
hardwood forests. In: Symp. on the Results of Research on Representative and Experimental Basins.
IAHS Publ. No. 96, IAHS, Wallingford, pp. 346-360.
Swank, W.T. and Miner, N.H., 1968. Conversion of hardwood covered watersheds to white pine reduces
water yield. Water Resour. Res., 4: 947-954.
Swank, W.T., Swift, Jr., L.W. and Douglass, J.E., 1988. Streamllow changes associated with forest cutting,
species conversions, and natural disturbances. In: W.T. Swank and D.A. Crossley, Jr. (Editors), Forest
Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta. Ecol. Stud. 66: 297-312.
 J.D. Stednick / Journal of Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95 95

Swift, L.W., Jr. and Swank, W.T., 1981. Long term responses of streamflow following clearcutting and
regrowth. Hydrol. Sci. Bull., 26: 245-356.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), 1961. Forest cover improvement influences upon hydrologic
characteristics of White Hollow watershed 1935-1958. Div. Water Control Plan. Hydraul. Data
Branch, TVA, Muscle Shoals, AL.
Thomas, R.B., 1990. Problems in determining the return of a watershed to pretreatment conditions:
techniques applied to a study at Caspar Creek, California. Water Resour. Res., 26: 2079-2087.
Troendle, C.A., 1983. The potential for water yield augmentation from forest management in the Rocky
Mountain Region. Water Resour. Bull., 19: 359-373.
Troendle, C.A. and King, R.M., 1985. The effects of timber harvest on the Fool Creek Watershed, 30 years
later. Water Resour. Res., 21: 1915-1922.
Ursic, S.J., 1970. Hydrologic effects of prescribed burning and deadening upland hardwoods in Northern
Mississippi. U S For. Serv. Res. Pap. SO-54.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1980. An approach to water resources evaluation of
nonpoint silvicultural sources (a procedural handbook). EPA-600/8-80-012, USEPA, Athens, GA.
Van Haveren, B.P., 1988. A reevaluation of the Wagon Wheel Gap forest watershed experiment. For. Sci.,
34: 208-214.
Verry, ES., 1972. Effect of an aspen clearcutting on water yield and quality in northern Minnesota. In: S.
Csallany, T. McLaughin and W.D. Striffler (Editors), Natl. Symp. on Watersheds in Transition. Am.
Water Resour. Assoc., Fort Collins, CO, June 1972. Proc. Ser. No. 14, pp. 176-284.
Verry, E.S., 1976. Estimating water yield differences between hardwood and pine forest: An application of
net precipitation data. U S For. Serv. Res. Pap. NC-128.
Verry, ES., 1987. The effect of aspen harvest and growth on water yield in Minnesota. In: R.H. Swanson,
P.Y. Bernier and P.D. Whitehead (Editors). Proc. Symp. on Forest Hydrology and Watershed
Management, Vancouver, B.C., August 1987. IASH-AISH, Wallingford, Publ. No. 167, pp. 553-562.
Whitehead, P.G. and Robinson, M., 1993. Experimental basin studies - an international and historical
perspective of forest impacts. J. Hydrol., 145: 217-230.